this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
774 points (99.7% liked)

News

22943 readers
5856 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill into law that won't stop companies from taking away your digitally purchased video games, movies, and TV shows, but it'll at least force them to be a little more transparent about it.

As spotted by The Verge, the law, AB 2426, will prohibit storefronts from using the words "buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good or alongside an option for a time-limited rental." The law won't apply to storefronts which state in "plain language" that you're actually just licensing the digital content and that license could expire at any time, or to products that can be permanently downloaded.

The law will go into effect next year, and companies who violate the terms could be hit with a false advertising fine. It also applies to e-books, music, and other forms of digital media.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 104 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's way past time for a crackdown in regard to digital ownership. We're living in a digital age now, where digital entertainment products have clearly outpaced physical products. We need to force companies away from the "rental store" mentality they're insisting on. If we're paying the same price for a digital copy of a product as it would be for a physical copy, then we deserve the same protections across the board.

If I buy a movie, music, a book, or a game, I should have the right to save a local copy of it to use, in perpetuity, in any manner I please, not just for as long as the company decides I should be able to or for as long as the company exists.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Not only that, but the ability to transfer or even sell your license. If I can gift or sell a book or DVD, I should be able to do the same with a game or digital movie.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Something like smart contracts on ethereum using NFTs is actually a perfect use for this and where the future is heading.

You get a fraud proof authorization token that cant be duplicated that let's you access the content. It can be sold or transferred without needing the company to still exist and can still unlock the content even years after they're bankrupt.

The only thing left is how do you host the content so it survives beyond the company going out of business. The company themselves could host it initially, but eventually it'd need to end up on a public torrent site or some other distributed sharing network otherwise it could vanish. But that's also a digital media problem in general.

Edit: also like any DRM people that want to break it can go as far as altering source code to remove the checks, they do that today, this wouldn't change it. But this is a path for people trying to do the right thing on all sides. They haven't stopped selling digital content because people can bypass things.

[–] JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I wish this were true, but unless companies were forced to stop licensing then they'll never do that. And even then, if the company decided to not sell smth anymore or stop supporting it or they went out of business you still wouldn't be able to get things legally a lot of the time.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

And even then, if the company decided to not sell smth anymore or stop supporting it or they went out of business you still wouldn't be able to get things legally a lot of the time.

I don't think that's an issue unless it's an online service that they host the servers on, but for something like a book, even if they decided to stop selling it (aka minting new NFT tokens to access it) all the existing tokens would still work and trading would work.

We can't really do anything about online services though unless a law requires a company to allow self hosting if they close down, which would be a great law to have.

Edit: just to clarify further, the token is the ownership at this point. Having the protected content anywhere on the internet and downloading it without a token isn't theft, it's just there and legal, inaccessible without the token. It could just be on a public torrent for download from day 1 for anyone to download with or without a token. Also the content could even link to the smart contract to purchase a token to unlock it. So a movie player would see a unauthorized movie with a buy now button. It could even be a token that unlocks it for a 24h rental. Unless the media owner kills the contract intentionally, it'll be purchasable as long as the blockchain it's on exists.

I wish this were true, but unless companies were forced to stop licensing then they'll never do that

I think we'll see someone experiment with this eventually even without a law. There's a lot of upset out there about not being able to resell digital content and it suddenly being taken away.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Something like smart contracts on ethereum using NFTs is actually a perfect use for this and where the future is heading.

Where the future is heading is bullshit stupid technology some idiots think they can make money from driving a climate crisis that kills us all. And then we won't have to put up with bullsht stupid technology pushed by idiots. Good riddance.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world -1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

In that case, may as well just pirate everything!

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 20 hours ago

Generative AI is already doing that. Tech is an extension of human activity, and as humans are observably machines for making their human world worse for each other, trust tech involves some level of harmful ignorance.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. Digital "ownership" is like trying to put a round peg in a square hole, it's applying rules and concepts to a fundamentally different thing. As long as it comes along with a tip culture for creators or some kind of guaranteed income.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

We can own digital things as long as they let us properly download them. If you pay for a mp3 and have the actual mp3 file that you can do whatever you want with it, I'd say you own that.

They don't let us download everything though because digital things can just be copied and freely distributed, so there's often DRM.

Imagine if steam sold games and you got a full no drm copy of the game that didn't require any hacks to make playable, no concern about viruses from shady distributions etc. People buy steam games because it's easy, they have great sales making games cheaper, its safe, and they have all the other things like steam friends, chat etc.

But if steam just gave everyone a digital copy with no DRM that you could verify was safe and steam compatible, their sales would drop and more people would pirate.

So its a balance between DRM which steam is, and actual ownership.

By having something digital that represents digital ownership that cant be duplicated, you can solve the problem.

Steam could just publicly host the game for download but it only runs if you own the license. The license can't be take away from you and is freely transferable.

For games, the problem is still online games. I'm not sure that's ownable unless they also let you host your own servers and its bundled in the game. But for offline games it's possible.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I'll simplify: I don't want that future. Steam is currently acceptable because they provide a low-impact market, I think their 30% cut is reasonable, and offline mode is adequate. If that changes I'm done. GOG also exists and is a preferable model, but the experience isn't as polished.

I don't care if sales drop a bit, the early success of stuff like netflix and spotify and steam proves that most people will happily pay a reasonable price for access rather than pirate. It's only a "problem" for the capitalists and fuck em.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

You can have everything steam has and still have a tokenized license that gives you ownership.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Steam is the worst acceptable format, is what I'm saying. Licenses and DRM are a thing we should move past not embrace.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

They do seem to be the best of the implementations, but I really don't see how we can just move past it. You can't stop regular digital items from being copied and distributed for free, it's simply not possible. Making digital items that couldn't be duplicated was exactly what Bitcoin originally solved. It wasn't possible until 2009.

At least with tokenization you own access to that game now if it was done right, and steam knows you didn't pirate it and they got paid for it. Just because it's tokenized doesn't mean they did it right though. You could still do it and make it as terrible as existing DRM.

Edit: And what steam does is provide an easy to access and SAFE game. We could make safe games as well by providing cryptographic proofs for the game. They just can't make something like that freely available without being paid somehow. And then of course someone could alter the game to remove the DRM and host it again, but now you're into the is it safe area again, because it won't be cryptographically signed as valid.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

"You can’t stop regular digital items from being copied and distributed for free, it’s simply not possible."

Yes, good, stop trying. Accept that some people are going to pirate. Fighting this just makes the user experience worse for everyone else.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 53 minutes ago* (last edited 44 minutes ago)

It's not that simple though.

Steam doesn't suffer a piracy problem because what they offer and the cost they offer it at outweighs the DRM, and there are certain things you can't do on the pirated copy because of the DRM (online play / friends / social stuff)

If suddenly valve decided not to do any DRM and the games could be freely copied, played online and use their friend services, of course they'd have a piracy problem. Of course I'd share a copy to all my friends, who would all do the same. (edit: and at that point it's not even piracy anymore, it's just sharing with friends because you aren't circumventing anything)

Valve has found a sweet spot in this regard, but the DRM is important to their success, but we don't have ownership. We can also solve the ownership problem ~~now~~ in the future or at small/medium scale now..

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

What future? NFT are still around?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago

Absolutely. Trump sells them lol

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

NFT are more than just digital art. It's a token that represents a specific thing and have been around since the very early days if Bitcoin. I believe it was colored coins that were first implementation, but maybe something came before even that.

They could be a stock certificate for a company, a license to a game, a concert ticket, a house key.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Could you imagine those ledgers trying to process when everyone in existence tries to insert hundreds to thousands of unique licenses. Then having to continuously access records on every media use after that.

How many unique copies of media are there out there. Hundreds of billions, trillions. I don't think we have anything adequately designed at this point that could handle that kind of load.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Thats not how it'd work. The blockchain will generate the NFT but the NFT can authorize itself. You can do offline signatures that will prove you own the token and thus own the media. It doesn't need to check in with anything online to pass a validity check once it's issued.

The token is unique, the media is just out there exactly like it this today. How many billions of copies of songs have been download from iTunes?

Edit: And layer 2s will be able to handle 100,000 TPS or more in the future for the initial issuance. I didn't say today, I said where the future is heading. That's 3,153,600,000,000 transactions a year, and it's going to be more than that.